Be careful stating names of online vendors

[crazymjb]

Is there any way you can contact said vendor and request a copy of the letter, or request a copy is sent to comm2a. I feel like there is SOMETHING we can do about this. For example drum up some sort of hype over the AG threatening/extorting companies trying to do legal business they find objectionable. If the state has a problem, they should propose legislation, not use some back door BS like this. And it would be great to have this crop up during her campaign for governor.

Mike

 

[Kaldone]

Is there any way you can contact said vendor and request a copy of the letter, or request a copy is sent to comm2a. I feel like there is SOMETHING we can do about this. For example drum up some sort of hype over the AG threatening/extorting companies trying to do legal business they find objectionable. If the state has a problem, they should propose legislation, not use some back door BS like this. And it would be great to have this crop up during her campaign for governor.

Mike

Looking at latest polls from Fox25 It looks like a lot of people want her I think it was 55% or something. (too lazy to look it up). For some reason, I don't think that this would phase people if they found out. After all, she's doing it to protect the people.

 

[Tater]

YES!!! so in Martha's world if ABC hobby shop sells me a radio controlled plane made by Fun co. and I fly it into my friends head at 30mph then he can sue the hobby shop instead of me....... hell I'm broke so best of luck.

 

[leewongfei]

I can ask, i certainly dont mind. I just dont know what they will be willing to give me. I dont want to make it sound like i am part of comm2a, or a representative of a lobby group. Should i pursue this, or is this something a legal representative should do?

 

[Delta L Varmint]

I don't think Marsha found anything out on this forum. We seem to be a pretty good group at self policing. Some other forums tend to be less conservative.

 

[SKS Ray]

The Massachusetts AG's office has been threatening distributors for years. It goes back to the Reilly days when I first started getting emails and return calls from distributors.
I've been warning people for just as long but as we all know you can't cure stupid and unfortunately this is what we continue to wind up with.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I don't think Marsha found anything out on this forum. We seem to be a pretty good group at self policing. Some other forums tend to be less conservative.

You are totally wrong!

--------------------

As for Comm2A, I'm 99% certain that they have seen the prior letters that I referred to above.

 

[groundscrapers]

when are we going to start to challenge these letters in court?

 

[Royal]

Tell me where to send money for a challenge to this crap and I'll gladly send it.

 

[Len-2A Training]

when are we going to start to challenge these letters in court?

You need a willing victim and none has ever been willing. We thought BP might have been "the one" but they folded when ratted out.

That is the kind of suit that will cost a fortune, and you will lose in MA courts . . . actually the AG was sued when the CMR was written and we lost. The history of that debacle is buried here on NES. So you can't sue on the same grounds ever again. Unsure if a good federal case could be made of it.

 

[crazymjb]

I can ask, i certainly dont mind. I just dont know what they will be willing to give me. I dont want to make it sound like i am part of comm2a, or a representative of a lobby group. Should i pursue this, or is this something a legal representative should do?

If I were you I would try desperately to get a copy of the letter, even with the vendors info redacted if that makes them more comfortable.

If the AG office denies it (unlikely), we can probably file an FOIA request (is that correct, my legal scholars?), and they will wind up with more egg on their face.

I really think we should spin this as a hardcore push that the AGs office under Martha Coakley is abusing their authority to threaten and extort lawful businesses they don't "agree" with. It's ****ing bullshit, and the actions should be dragged out for all to see. The idiots will still laud her for doing it, but any of the educated democrats SHOULD have a problem with this... Just as I would have a huge issue with the AGs office threatening groups like Moms Demand Action.

ETA: If any of the AG aids are reading this (since we know we do have moles on this site). I'd just like to say **** you, you have no concept of service to your country. Go do something more worthwhile like harass the level IIIs that live all over this ****ing state instead of rot in jail. /rant

Mike

 

[BostonBullit]

If I were you I would try desperately to get a copy of the letter, even with the vendors info redacted if that makes them more comfortable.

If the AG office denies it (unlikely), we can probably file an FOIA request (is that correct, my legal scholars?), and they will wind up with more egg on their face.

I really think we should spin this as a hardcore push that the AGs office under Martha Coakley is abusing their authority to threaten and extort lawful businesses they don't "agree" with. It's ****ing bullshit, and the actions should be dragged out for all to see. The idiots will still laud her for doing it, but any of the educated democrats SHOULD have a problem with this... Just as I would have a huge issue with the AGs office threatening groups like Moms Demand Action.

ETA: If any of the AG aids are reading this (since we know we do have moles on this site). I'd just like to say **** you, you have no concept of service to your country. Go do something more worthwhile like harass the level IIIs that live all over this ****ing state instead of rot in jail. /rant

Mike

It will have the opposite effect, the majority of the state will applaud her. Most people in this state think the idea of being able to purchase ammunition online is some conservative redneck plan to arm the gangs of the inner city. Our only recourse is through the federal courts but good luck finding a willing vendor to take part. I promise that if I hit the lotto for more than $50mm I'll do it for us all

 

[crazymjb]

I started another thread.

If we present this to the vendors honestly and accurately I'm sure some who still have the letters would be willing to at the very least, give us a redacted copy. We don't need them to testify or anything, we just need evidence (which exists) of her office harassing vendors. I also want someone knowledgeable to file a FOIA request for the letters if possible.

Mike

 

[pupchow]

Threads like this allow them to affirm the effectiveness of their campaign against us. See nothing, say nothing.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

**** rats.

Get ****ed by a freighter you *******s.

 

[KH56010]

If there's no law against selling and shipping to us and Martha is sending letters basically saying "stop or we'll sue you out of business" isn't there some sort of precedent they can use to sue our AG for harassment and violation of some sort of equal commerce clause? Like one of the posters stated earlier, what if the AG randomly decided they wanted to Dethrone Coca Cola sales and sent them a letter with the same info? Coca Cola wouldn't wait to get sued and then let it drag on for years, they'd find some law that made it clear their rights as a business were being violated and take that bitch to court.

 

[voidoid]

I recently saw a posting on a gun-related internet forum that listed a company that was willing to ship to them ("Does anyone know of a vendor...never mind I found ____ and they will ship to me in MA"). It was in the clear for about five hours before I saw it and asked the forum mods to delete on behalf of MA gun owners and the original poster. An hour after that the mods deleted it- I certainly hope it wasn't the same company!!!

...or any of the places I order from...

I've sent several major online retailers letters saying that it's not illegal to ship ammo or certain other things to MA (e.g. semi auto rifles/handguns to FFLs, magazines) and they should consider a policy change. I provide citations to MGL. It's never gone anywhere. An organized letter writing campaign that resulted in a retailer policy change probably would only result in another threatening letter by the AG. Perhaps an approach from GOAL or Comm2A could help, I dunno. All of this simply underscores that we need to be careful who we share info with- ONLY people you know well in person.

 

[OfficerObie59]

I would really like to see someone take one for the team and sue for interfering with LEGAL interstate commerce and abuse of power. We all know the taxpayer will be the one paying. Until these little tyrants are held personally accountable nothing will change.

Unfortunately the dormant commerce clause has a relatively robust "public safety" (excuse) exception.

 

[OfficerObie59]

The only way any of the big online retailers would fight it (CTD, Brownells, Midway, Cabelas, etc) would be if they got together as coplaintiffs and split the legal costs. Why would I pay the fees to sue only to open up doors for my competition that didn't pay a cent?

 

[crazymjb]

Does it require a demonstrated interest? I could see (though dont agree with) the AG saying they want sellers to verify FID/LTC... but otherwise what public safety interest could they claim?

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Quiet]

The only way any of the big online retailers would fight it (CTD, Brownells, Midway, Cabelas, etc) would be if they got together as coplaintiffs and split the legal costs. Why would I pay the fees to sue only to open up doors for my competition that didn't pay a cent?

...not to mention that they aren't exactly overflowing with inventory looking for a place to sell it. If there wasn't an ammo shortage you might find more out-of-state retailers as willing litigants.

In other words, don't hold your breath.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

The only way any of the big online retailers would fight it (CTD, Brownells, Midway, Cabelas, etc) would be if they got together as coplaintiffs and split the legal costs. Why would I pay the fees to sue only to open up doors for my competition that didn't pay a cent?

I wonder if they just look at MA and think its just not worth it. This state is so *** backwards, i bet that if someone made the public aware that Marsha was basically blackmailing these companies, she would see more votes go her way because the dumb*** voters in this state would think she was fighting crime

 

[scooter]

It will have the opposite effect, the majority of the state will applaud her. Most people in this state think the idea of being able to purchase ammunition online is some conservative redneck plan to arm the gangs of the inner city. Our only recourse is through the federal courts but good luck finding a willing vendor to take part. I promise that if I hit the lotto for more than $50mm I'll do it for us all

I have to agree with Boston on this one, their ignorance outweighs our passion for the sport.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I've sent several major online retailers letters saying that it's not illegal to ship ammo or certain other things to MA (e.g. semi auto rifles/handguns to FFLs, magazines) and they should consider a policy change. I provide citations to MGL. It's never gone anywhere. An organized letter writing campaign that resulted in a retailer policy change probably would only result in another threatening letter by the AG. Perhaps an approach from GOAL or Comm2A could help, I dunno. All of this simply underscores that we need to be careful who we share info with- ONLY people you know well in person.

It doesn't work (sadly). Just after the law changed in 1998, many companies started to say no to various perfectly legal transactions (e.g. I tried to order a CETME from one firm, had Carl from Four Seasons on the phone with us to verify that he'd accept it for me and do the transfer, they canceled the order twice prior to telling me "it's illegal to ship rifles to MA"). Back then Chief Glidden would contact these vendors as Chairman of the Gun Control Advisory Board and attempt to educate them. Ron finally gave up, he told me that almost all of them would refuse to even believe him. They wallowed in their ignorance . . . and this was BEFORE any AG ran sting operations and threatened them. Now with the threats, there is no way that you will change these vendors minds.

I recently had another company tell me that they can't sell C&R guns into MA (C&R FFL holder) that it was illegal.

Does it require a demonstrated interest? I could see (though dont agree with) the AG saying they want sellers to verify FID/LTC... but otherwise what public safety interest could they claim?

Mike

Their interest is to starve out gun ownership in MA and hope that they all go away from lack of ammo/supplies.

...not to mention that they aren't exactly overflowing with inventory looking for a place to sell it. If there wasn't an ammo shortage you might find more out-of-state retailers as willing litigants.

In other words, don't hold your breath.

See my story above, this was true long before there were shortages.

I wonder if they just look at MA and think its just not worth it. This state is so *** backwards, i bet that if someone made the public aware that Marsha was basically blackmailing these companies, she would see more votes go her way because the dumb*** voters in this state would think she was fighting crime

You are right on both counts!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If there's no law against selling and shipping to us and Martha is sending letters basically saying "stop or we'll sue you out of business" isn't there some sort of precedent they can use to sue our AG for harassment and violation of some sort of equal commerce clause? Like one of the posters stated earlier, what if the AG randomly decided they wanted to Dethrone Coca Cola sales and sent them a letter with the same info? Coca Cola wouldn't wait to get sued and then let it drag on for years, they'd find some law that made it clear their rights as a business were being violated and take that bitch to court.

One issue is "Where does a mail order sale occur?". One argument is that under the concept of FOB, title to the asset and risk of loss passes to the buyer at point of delivery to the common carrier. The AG's position is that the sale takes place in the location to which the common carrier delivers. If the AG's argument prevailed on that issue, one would then have to look at restraint of trade issues (constitutional prohibition of imposition of duties for sales between states).

Coca Cola is not a relevant argument, as I doubt Coke would even notice a ban on mail order sales. Wine is a much better argument (NY lost a case banning mail order wine sales), as it is an item that is commonly mail ordered, subject to regulation, and may no be bought by certain purchasers.

 

[noddaduma]

Why the hell hasn't your state org filed lawsuit against the AG yet? She holds no jurisdiction outside of your state lines, yet oversteps her authority every single time a letter like that is sent out.

And FFS have your supplier call *their* state AG's office or state rep to complain.

Doing nothing encourages bad behavior. Making excuses not to act gets you nowhere.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Why the hell hasn't your state org filed lawsuit against the AG yet? She holds no jurisdiction outside of your state lines, yet oversteps her authority every single time a letter like that is sent out.

We have two orgs - GOAL (lobbying) and COMM2A (litigation). I cannot comment on any Comm2A case strategy except as publicly disclosed via legal process (a reality of the adversarial system).

Another interesting analogy would be MJ - assuming a state where it is legal has no law against it, could a non-MJ state prosecute a vendor for mail order sales into it's state (excluding for the same federal prosecution or any violation of mail order/interstate commerce rules/laws regarding shipping a federally prohibited substance).

An unsettled issue is "where does a mail order sale occur?" - at the location of the shipper or the recipient?

 

[KH56010]

One issue is "Where does a mail order sale occur?". One argument is that under the concept of FOB, title to the asset and risk of loss passes to the buyer at point of delivery to the common carrier. The AG's position is that the sale takes place in the location to which the common carrier delivers. If the AG's argument prevailed on that issue, one would then have to look at restraint of trade issues (constitutional prohibition of imposition of duties for sales between states).

Coca Cola is not a relevant argument, as I doubt Coke would even notice a ban on mail order sales. Wine is a much better argument (NY lost a case banning mail order wine sales), as it is an item that is commonly mail ordered, subject to regulation, and may no be bought by certain purchasers.

It seems like everything I've seen with mail order lately is that the sale technically takes place at the headquarters of the company shipping the product. Unless they have a business location in the state they are delivering too.

Like with Amazon opening an office in Boston and now we get to pay sales tax on items purchased through them and with small claims suits where you don't have to file in the state the headquarters for the business is located if they have an office in the state you live in.

 

[Jason Flare]

Since government coercion often creates an effect opposite from the one the government is trying to to create I would be interested in knowing if MA gun owners possess, on average, a greater number of rounds of ammunition than gun owners in free states where you can order online and only need to be 21 or over to buy ammo.

A study like that could be useful to show that Marsha is shortsighted in attempting to change behavior.

 

[jasons]

One issue is "Where does a mail order sale occur?". One argument is that under the concept of FOB, title to the asset and risk of loss passes to the buyer at point of delivery to the common carrier.

Generally when the buyer pays the shipping costs (which is typically how the transactions in question here are done) it's considered "FOB origin," which basically means that the buyer owns the goods as soon as they leave the seller's possession.